Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

I actually think the western front is where this game shines when it comes to representing history.

Think about it. 1914, mobile warfare with massive casualties. Winter of 1914 things settle down into entrenched positions that gradually become thicker. 1915, if the Germans or Entente launch major offensives, at least until towards the end, they are likely suffering massive casualties as they attack trench lines without upgraded artillery. 1916, widespread artillery level 1 means that you can break 2 or 3 hexes of trench at a time, but your enemy can do the same, leading to an "offensive-counteroffensive" dynamic that leaves you with equal casualties and back where you started (Verdun and Somme offensives both fall under this category). Late 1916 early 1917 is when you are getting to artillery level 2 with ammunition level 2, so now massed artillery is permitting large scale offensives and the advantage is beginning to move towards the offense. All of this is with and against a human player, so the timelines are a little sped up... if you play historically and divert resources into unimportant areas, things should be right on track.

This game does have its problems, like submarines being overpowered in surface combat and cavalry being far too free to maneuver, but in the west I think it is pretty faithful to how things turned out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rugens

Undoubtedly we all have our favorite WWI games. Sadly most have significant flaws. IMHO the best by far is/was WWI CE.

I cannot disagree that the overall feel and pattern of the war can generally be created by the game. The mechanics certainly enable a stalemate and some other things. It gets to some of the end-points but the way it does it seems to ignore a pretty bedrock aspects of WWI.

My point is simply that there is no place for a historic defensive or holding strategy in the game. As long as the mathematics nearly always result in an attack/offensive out-killing the the defense, defense is not viable which was simply not the case in WWI. Not saying the game cannot still be enjoyable. It's just disappointing that defense, during a period that should be it's primacy, is nearly completely ineffective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Try WW1 Gold. It shines as it really does the difference between open warfare at start and end of the War and trench warfare. Something most games struggle with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rugens

Undoubtedly we all have our favorite WWI games. Sadly most have significant flaws. IMHO the best by far is/was WWI CE.

I cannot disagree that the overall feel and pattern of the war can generally be created by the game. The mechanics certainly enable a stalemate and some other things. It gets to some of the end-points but the way it does it seems to ignore a pretty bedrock aspects of WWI.

My point is simply that there is no place for a historic defensive or holding strategy in the game. As long as the mathematics nearly always result in an attack/offensive out-killing the the defense, defense is not viable which was simply not the case in WWI. Not saying the game cannot still be enjoyable. It's just disappointing that defense, during a period that should be it's primacy, is nearly completely ineffective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rugens

I should preface my comments by admitting I'm an old Grognard and my idea of a perfect game is still WITPAE.

Since not many of my type of games are being published these days, when I received a nice 50% discount for having been around Matrix for 20 years I decided to use it on the SC bundle. I've always been curious about SC but never made the leap.

I'm trying really hard to like SC WWI but there are some aspects that make it very hard to embrace.

There are some things the game seems to do well. I really like the research and upgrade systems. One really needs to reconcile themselves to the abstract aspects of the game. This is especially true of the naval system. That being said, once you get used to it, there are some nice subtilties that can make the boats fun and at least in a general sense provide some historical flavor.

The one thing I've not been able to reconcile myself with though is the land combat mechanics. I realize the game is an outgrowth of the WWII versions and the mechanics/system seems to fit much better with WWII. To summarize the mechanics in a simplistic manner, the way to inflict the maximum amount of damage on your foe is to focus on a single unit to the point of it's destruction. There are several significant benefits if you can destroy the unit vs killing the same amount of factors on a couple of undestroyed units. No problem. Makes some sense.

The problem seems to come into being in the combat mechanics they have devised to overcome trenches which (as they should) with time become more and more difficult to crack.

The way the system works as far as attacking an entrenched hex is to recon the hex and then pound it with a lot of artillery to lower the readiness and morale of the defending unit. That done the attacker then concentrates the attacks of 3 or 4 corps onto the single hex until the unit is destroyed. At the end of this process the total casualties in aggerate are usually higher for the defender and lower for the attacker. If this sounds a bit strange, that's because it is. Even a cursory familiarity with WWI should ring some warning bells that something is ass-backwards here.

I can try several rationalizations about a turn or two being an abstract of attack/counter-attack but the inescapable numbers in the game are that on this WWI battlefield, the attacker usually outkills the defender in their offensives. Hmmm

So the conclusion of course is that well, its a game, that's the system, and if my worthy opponent does it I simply need to do the same thing as well or better if I want to beat them.

I can certainly do that but the problem for me is it gets difficult to use elements of strategy and tactics consistent with the history of the subject. In this game that means that in the era of the primacy of defense (at least through most of the war), defense has no real primacy nor, more importantly, does defense have the ability to inflict massive and unsustainable causalities on the attacker. Since massive and unsustainable casualties on the attacker were usually the reasons offensives were discontinued during WWI, this sets a bit uneasy with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOARP

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Try WW1 Gold. It shines as it really does the difference between open warfare at start and end of the War and trench warfare. Something most games struggle with.

Meh, there's some issues with that game:

- The clunky and overly-complicated phase system.

- Doesn't use hexes.

- The wonky map orientation ("East" is "up")

- Unrealistic "card-game" style combat.

I bounced off it hard when I tried it when it first came out (admittedly this was a long time ago and it may have changed in the meantime - but this review basically says the same things as well as stability/CTD issues that I had forgotten about). I guess if you like AGEOD games then you'll like it, but they're not for me - if I wanted to play a province-move game I'd play HOI.

One final thing: this game is still being supported by Bill and the Fury software team and so will improve from where it is. AGEOD have long since stopped maintaining their WW1 game (wasn't it the reason why they got bought by Paradox? Something about the game flopping leaving them in financial trouble?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time.

Was that the Avalon Hill board game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin


Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time.

Was that the Avalon Hill board game?

I have that one, the board was really bland...I mean, Really Bland, and the counters were old school. Overall, imo, a good workman like game. I seem to remember there was lots of errata that came later.

Now, if you really want to go back in time, there's Avalon Hill's '1914'. That ones a beauty and the planning of your moves had to be meticulous. There were map sheets provided so you could keep track of the fort hex sides that got demolished. It also had a counter step reduction mechanic which was pretty advanced for its time. I remember playing it 2 years after it came out with my uncle. Of course, these games were a secret back then because nerds were not cool...a few years later, they all got shelved for awhile as girls became the best thing around.

One thing about this game that I think needs a little polishing, is that the artillery is a tad too powerful, as pointed out by Tanaka on this thread, and others elsewhere. One thing I've noticed playing pbem (I've done 16 with 2 others going now) is that between 2 relatively equal opponents, with the classic deadlocks in the usual places going on, that the games end around late 1916 when the lvl 2 art. starts showing up. I would of expected those weapons in mid 1917 and certainly 1918, not earlier. I've been in a few games where both sides were having success in local theaters offensively and secure defensively in others..then Bam!...things start folding up for one side quickly..as if its mid-late 1918, soon as the arty2's with max shell supply start doing their thing. Its rare in this case, to see Tanks deployed, because a collapse of epic proportion ensues too early...mainly caused by these dealers in Hell's Hurricane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOARP

units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOARP

units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again.

Could this be that players are investing more in their offensive arm (artillery) and less in Trench Warfare than they could, given that 4 chits can be invested into the latter?

Another factor could be that when Infantry are upgraded with Infantry Weapons level 2 their Artillery Defense Bonus increases by 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOARP

units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again.

Could this be that players are investing more in their offensive arm (artillery) and less in Trench Warfare than they could, given that 4 chits can be invested into the latter?

Another factor could be that when Infantry are upgraded with Infantry Weapons level 2 their Artillery Defense Bonus increases by 1.

I would say no. I always upgrade artillery, trench warfare, and infantry weapons as priorities all at the same time. Although the Germans already start with researching artillery at game start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rugens

From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well.

It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point.

For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense.

If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rugens

From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well.

It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point.

For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense.

If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me.

Again if artillery were toned down just a bit I don't think the attacking would be such an advantage...